Page 6 of 75 FirstFirst ... 23456789101156 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 1863

Thread: Omni Hotel

  1. #126

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Quote Originally Posted by mkjeeves View Post
    People who study the numbers and the market can make reasonable assumptions and projections. We don't have that from the [anti cc and anti non-existent (to date) hotel] crowd. We have BS numbers and rhetoric.
    Since a knife slices forward stroke and back stroke, thought I'd add the other side of the cut for you.

  2. #127

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Quote Originally Posted by mkjeeves View Post
    Like Soonercan'tread, you aren't keeping up with the thread either. No surprise.
    Nice, another dodge. Just FYI, if you go back a page and read Urbanized's post you can see that he makes no mention of those figures, so stop trying to blame him.

    Once again, can you back up your numbers?

  3. #128

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Here's your $800 million. Here is what Ed says on his own blog:

    "The costs are staggering."

    I bolded the word costs because he doesn't say the word potential. He is just saying what it will cost. Now, I also might add that the city hasn't even purchased the land for the convention center yet. It is even possible they could decide to relocate it if they cannot acquire the land at a reasonable price.

    $250 million - MAPS 3 Convention Center. Land acquisition has been slow as the City and land owners disagree on the value of the land. "Comps" in the area involving city purchases of real estate could place the value of the 10.46 acres of the Ford Dealership site at some $75 million, or tens of millions more than budgeted. Additionally, land has already been acquired for recommended expansions. Electrical utility lines have been discovered below Harvey Ave which will need to be relocated at significant cost. Even before potential cost overruns on construction begin, consultants have indicated that $250 million will be inadequate to obtain the 285,000 sq. ft. recommended in the CS&L study.
    $200 million - Convention Center Hotel. Estimates for the cost for the proposed 735 room convention center hotel are in the $200 million range.
    $50 million - Parking. There is no money in the MAPS3 budget for parking, estimated by some to be in the $50 million range.
    $50 million to $150 million - interest payments. If the convention center hotel was financed through revenue bonds, we could be faced with interest payments as high as $150 million depending on the term of the note.
    $150 million - additional phases. The recommendation in the CS&L study was that the City would subsequently need to expand the convention center to 425,000 sq. ft at a cost of an additional roughly $150 million.

  4. #129

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. I'll try again though:

    Convention Hotel - OKCTalk

  5. #130

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Quote Originally Posted by mkjeeves View Post
    You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. I'll try again though:

    Convention Hotel - OKCTalk
    Nope, that linked post is not an explanation for your $250+250 figure. Try again.

  6. #131

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Quote Originally Posted by kevinpate View Post
    Since a knife slices forward stroke and back stroke, thought I'd add the other side of the cut for you.
    Maybe when the dust clears a year from now when we vote, we'll have some better idea about it. I'm not holding my breath.

  7. #132

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Quote Originally Posted by mkjeeves View Post
    People who study the numbers and the market can make reasonable assumptions and projections. We don't have that from the pro crowd. We have BS numbers and rhetoric.
    We don't have that from your group either. A proper scientific study would involve thousands of hours of work. Ed's people didn't do that.

  8. Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Those number from Shadid seem correct to me. When the Chamber did their original study their revenue projections were for a 2-phase + hotel convention center. MAPS III only funds the first phase. So what happens if the first phase is the only phase? According the Chambers original study the new convention center will be a total failure. OKC only gets the new conventions with a 425,000 sq ft convention center and hotel, which by default means that when the citizens voted to fund phase 1 they were also choosing to fund phase 2 and a hotel without knowing how much they were going to cost or where the money was going to come from - thank you OKC Chamber for getting a curveball by us.

    I am still amazed that anyone thinks attracting a subsidized convention by making available subsidized hotel rooms is good business. The growth model doesn't work because you have to continually subsides the new growth. Let me ask, when does the subsidizing stop and the benefits of building this stuff kick in, if ever? If the goal of the convention center and hotel is economic development there are a hell of a lot better ways to spend $800 million than this. Look at all the development just from the measly $75 million downtown investment fund. It is bringing in housing, OPUBCO, CLR, and who knows what else. Imagine if that fund was $875 million instead.

  9. #134

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Mkjeeves does not answer direct questions. Watch him dodge your question again -- or simply attack some other poster. I don't see how he attacks Urbanized's reasonable post.

  10. #135

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    mkjeeves is about one post away from being on my ignore list.

  11. #136

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the facts View Post
    Those number from Shadid seem correct to me.
    The numbers are only correct if a hotel is 100% subsidized by the city and if we build a phase II for the convention center. Neither of those things is happening at present, nor may they ever. As far as Chamber revenue projections, as I've said, maybe that's not the reason we build a convention center. Maybe there are other good reasons. Maybe a less generous projection is acceptable. Maybe we make a bunch of money tearing down the Cox and selling the land to a company wanting to build a tower downtown.

  12. #137

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Quote Originally Posted by Just the facts View Post
    Those number from Shadid seem correct to me. When the Chamber did their original study their revenue projections were for a 2-phase + hotel convention center. MAPS III only funds the first phase. So what happens if the first phase is the only phase? According the Chambers original study the new convention center will be a total failure. OKC only gets the new conventions with a 425,000 sq ft convention center and hotel, which by default means that when the citizens voted to fund phase 1 they were also choosing to fund phase 2 and a hotel without knowing how much they were going to cost or where the money was going to come from - thank you OKC Chamber for getting a curveball by us.

    I am still amazed that anyone thinks attracting a subsidized convention by making available subsidized hotel rooms is good business. The growth model doesn't work because you have to continually subsides the new growth. Let me ask, when does the subsidizing stop and the benefits of building this stuff kick in, if ever? If the goal of the convention center and hotel is economic development there are a hell of a lot better ways to spend $800 million than this. Look at all the development just from the measly $75 million downtown investment fund. It is bringing in housing, OPUBCO, CLR, and who knows what else. Imagine if that fund was $875 million instead.
    all in a convention climate that's not working in our direction.

  13. #138

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    All? Again, where's the proof that all those things will ever come to pass? What if global statements about conventions don't apply equally to individual markets? What if goals are more realistic?

  14. #139

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    The convention center climate is not working in our direction. Anything that happens will be in that climate. Any, all, whatever.

  15. #140

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    A. We probably need a new convention no matter what direction the market is heading.

    B. We have no idea how much we would have to spend even if we had to subsidize a hotel. Some cities have given land only.

    C. There is NO proposed $200-250 million dollar loan for a CC hotel. That could not be slipped under the rug by Council.

    D. Any convention center phase II would have to be passed by the voters.

    E. Parking garages usually generate revenue although it is true you have to pay for them first.

  16. #141

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    There you have it, folks. I hope the last couple dozen posts have demonstrated to everyone paying attention which side of this discussion uses numbers that can be sourced and which does not, no matter how hard you push.

  17. Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Quote Originally Posted by betts View Post
    The numbers are only correct if a hotel is 100% subsidized by the city and if we build a phase II for the convention center. Neither of those things is happening at present, nor may they ever. As far as Chamber revenue projections, as I've said, maybe that's not the reason we build a convention center. Maybe there are other good reasons. Maybe a less generous projection is acceptable. Maybe we make a bunch of money tearing down the Cox and selling the land to a company wanting to build a tower downtown.
    Betts, you and I both agree we shouldn't build a convention center and hotel as a tool of economic development, but I really wish the people who are doing that would stop it because the math doesn't add up. After what we now know about the cost and required on-going and perpetual subsidization no one in their right mind could continue to believe that lie. The Chamber set themselves up for this when they produced and sold a convention center plan based on pie-in-the-sky projections while only telling us about part of the cost. If this had been in any other medium the Chamber would have their ass sued off for non-disclosure.

    The people of OKC deserve a nice venue to hold high school graduations, state and local conventions, home and garden shows, and Red Andrews Dinners - just leave it at that, its okay. Public buildings should reflect the shared value and pride of the community - the fact the Chamber chose not to sell it this way speaks volumes, as in, maybe we don't have value and pride. Judging by some of the recent city projects (police station, parking garage, lower Bricktown, your typical prison style school, etc... maybe we don't have any collective civic pride left, but to get it back we need to start building public projects that can restore it like project 180. We have spent so long building stuff no one cares about and places not worth caring about that we simply stopped caring - period.

    Admins - Dang it is hard to separate the hotel from the convention center because the chamber made it a package deal, so move this to another thread if need be.

  18. #143

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    A. We probably need a new convention no matter what direction the market is heading.

    I've agreed with that multiple times. I'd also consider a complete rework of the Cox center if it made sense.

    B. We have no idea how much we would have to spend even if we had to subsidize a hotel. Some cities have given land only.

    I agree. We don't know how much we would have to spend if anything. Some cities have bankrolled the whole thing too.

    C. There is NO proposed $200-250 million dollar loan for a CC hotel. That could not be slipped under the rug by Council.

    ad nauseum! I haven't said that. Do not know if anyone else has said that either. Funny you should repeat it at every opportunity. Do you know the effect on people of repeated denials? You all knee jerkers might want to read up on that.

    D. Any convention center phase II would have to be passed by the voters.

    That would be my guess too. Don't know how it would happen otherwise.

    E. Parking garages usually generate revenue although it is true you have to pay for them first.

    No comments on a parking garage other than I'd prefer to see any and all of them privately owned.

  19. #144

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    If the city makes money on parking garages, and I think they do, I'm OK with owning one.

  20. Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Haha I like how it has somehow become URBANIZED calling for a fully-subsidized hotel. And also find it funny that I am espousing "rhetoric". A more accurate description might be "anectdotal evidence" (which is actually easier to assail than rhetoric if you want to bash me). You're right that I am not quoting figures, because I don't have them. I trust the people in the CVB on the issue, only because I know them well. I work with them and have for a long time. I strongly believe that they are interested in doing what is best for the industry and for the city. I have been in formal, informal and over-cocktails discussions with them where they have discussed these issues and various barriers to success they currently deal with. For years, not just over the past few weeks.

    It's hard to separate this issue from the mayoral election (by design, I think), and this is taking on the same political overtones as that the election threads are. I want to be really clear; I'm pretty sure I have not expressed ANY opinion in those threads for or against either candidate, and I will not be doing so. I have been asked to become involved with campaigns and I refused. Like I told them, I manage a company that is a City contractor, and though not required, I try to hold myself to the same standard as City employees are generally held when it comes to election of candidates. The way I see it, I work for both guys in this election, until further notice. I really just want to get it behind us, because it has become so divisive.

    I just find it regrettable that the convention center has become a political football here, as I think it should be a non-partisan and citywide issue. I believe it is really important for the future of not just my industry or downtown but for the city in general. Folks don't understand the impact citywide conventions have on OKC, and not just downtown. They are very clean revenue generators, and they spread income throughout the city to suburban hotels (a "citywide" literally means it fills up rooms not just at the convention hotel but throughout the entire community), to restaurants, to attractions (a large number of which are not downtown and which employ your neighbors). Visitors and convention-goers use their dollars to support quality-of-life improvements for ALL of us.

    I have come to those personal conclusions based upon years of seeing the impact the current business has on downtown (that most people don't see or recognize, BTW), and also in seeing the challenges that the talented and hard-working CVB staff is up against. I think a pretty incomplete story is being told by both sides in this debate (and not necessarily intentionally - it's a complex issue), and I wanted to add some anecdotal evidence from inside the industry for whatever it's worth. Believe it or don't.

    Regarding the "subsidy," as has been said here I think that is still very much TBD, and I am certainly not suggesting that it should be even a major portion of the cost. I agree with other posters that a full subsidy would be a huge mistake. For one thing, we don't want the public sector in charge of running our largest hotel. City participation could be from any of a variety of sources, and could be a small number or a bigger one. It could simply be in the form of guaranteed loans or some other instrument not yet discussed. I'm certainly not on the inside of that discussion but have high regard for folks within City staff and/or the Alliance who would be involved in finding those sources. They are basically the same people who performed this task for the Skirvin development - and might use similar instruments - and I don't think very many would take issue with the way the Skirvin was revived. I also think the private sector will without a doubt step up. I mentioned before that hotel occupancy is currently routinely running north of 80%. and my understanding is that the private sector gets VERY interested in a market when it is exceeding 70%. I believe the process will be competitive enough that someone simply seeking a handout will easily be excluded. So the idea that this will require full subsidy DEFINITELY does not come from me, for the record.

    The only thing I was trying to get across in my previous post is that there are many layers to this discussion - including reasons why SOME public involvement might actually be DESIRABLE - yet it is being treated in a very absolute, black/white manner right now.

    One other thing: the problems with reworking the Cox (though that would also be my preference strictly based on the desirability of the location from a convention planning standpoint) are first that it would effectively put us out of the convention business for a couple of years during the remodel (a non-starter) and the fact that the current configuration and underground parking structure would make it impossible to sustain the floor loads a modern convention center would require. It likely would be more expensive to retrofit the Cox than to build from scratch. Don't think it wasn't discussed.

    Anyway, despite having other things to say on the matter I think it is probably safest to bow out at this point lest my participation in the discussion be confused with publicly taking a side in the concurrent political wrangling.

  21. #146

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Quote Originally Posted by mkjeeves View Post
    No subsidy of any kind on a hotel. There's no evident reason to do that. If we need it, the private sector can step up. We've already spent millions to attract business and redevelop downtown. Let that money do the work we were told it would do.

    As far as CC numbers be damned and spend it all anyway on a bauble, I'd rather take another look at rehabbing the Cox center than do that. Put the rest back in the taxpayers pocket and for something else we need. Maps for Suburbs would be a good place. Buying (another) $1000 doormat for a house with the back porch falling off is irresponsible.

    That spend it while we have it attitude reminds me of a sign my father used to have on his office wall, "Nothing is easier than spending public money. It does not appear to belong to anyone. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on someone."

    Calvin Coolidge
    I would support a subsidizing a hotel, so we disagree there.

    I would support a MAPS4Suburbs type deal. OKC could definitely use some rehab in its suburban areas.

  22. #147

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Quote Originally Posted by betts View Post
    To be honest, I'd rather spend the $250 million and, if we really don't need as much space (and I don't know that - how much space do most conventions we could attract need?) build a show stopper. My concern was always that the space chosen needs a stunning building because of its location. If we're building it for civic pride and community need, let's see if we can build something that ends up in an architecture magazine or at least is admired by anyone who sees it or the brochures.

    As far as a hotel is concerned, I think we should NOT borrow money to build it unless they make it a votable bond issue. If they can get a really nice hotel chain to build a hotel with a reasonable subsidy and we still need hotel rooms downtown then I'm fine with it.
    +1

  23. #148

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Quote Originally Posted by OKVision4U View Post
    The People already voted to 1) Spend their money. 2) They wanted a new Convention Center. 3) We are going to get a new CC.

    We voted to go outside the standard ( trust gov w/ our money ) , we started MAPS and now we are going to get what we all previously ( through a city wide vote) decided on. The People are fine with this process. We ready to spend the money we decided on this CC.

    The Hotel is a seperate conversation, and we could certainly use a ( Hyatt Type ) hotel for our guest. 40+ stories would be fine w/ me.
    Agreed

  24. #149

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Quote Originally Posted by OKVision4U View Post
    Hey you like using big numbers, so here's one for ya... That ( Pro ) crowd is about 97% of us out here. ...we are comfortable in our large numbers. That leaves a very small ( 3% ) for the uninformed / misinformed / & the 1% that always votes against the majority.

    I hope we get a chance to vote for a hotel that is $1B in cost, because our economy is growing at a pace that requires it.

    ( wait, that may be too small, let's make that $1.5 B in cost so we can have 2 Iconic Towers looking over our fine city.)
    I would support an 800 million dollar convention center hotel when it is all said and done. I would just like a convention center equal to or better than Nashville's(yes I know how big Nashville's music and tourism industry is).

  25. #150

    Default Re: Convention Hotel

    Quote Originally Posted by mkjeeves View Post
    Ask Urbanized, it was his rhetoric. What's he got in mind and how far is he willing to go towards the total cost? How far are you willing to go? My answer is zero.
    With the convention fully built, all phases completed, world class hotel built, I wouldn't mind the city having spent $800,000,000.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Constitutional Convention sure why not.
    By Garin in forum Politics
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-09-2013, 07:56 PM
  2. The GOP Convention
    By Double Edge in forum Politics
    Replies: 201
    Last Post: 09-06-2012, 09:39 PM
  3. Advertising Convention
    By Goodengroup in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-19-2011, 12:17 PM
  4. Convention Center
    By OKCMann in forum Suburban & Other OK Communities
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-12-2007, 12:41 AM
  5. Convention - 2008
    By Karried in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-28-2005, 08:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO